RKI Files: 1st 'Lockdown' was Based on a Political Decision

Now the evidence is in, proving, once again, French economist Frédéric Bastiat correct

Reference is made to this posting:

FOIA'ed 'RKI Files' from Germany Show the Fake 'Pandemic'

A few days ago, Multipolar Magazin published a first ‘teaser’ about the early mandates instituted by the German gov’t based on the faulty ‘advice’ offered by the Robert Koch Institute.

I’ll be writing more about the RKI Files in the next weeks, hence this posting to increase their visibility to international readers.

Translation, emphases, and bottom lines mine.

---

‘It should be scaled up’

Multipolar has sued for the previously kept secret protocols of the Corona crisis team at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). They make it clear: the heightening of the risk assessment from ‘moderate’ to ‘high’ announced by the RKI in March 2020—on which all lockdown measures and subsequent court rulings are based—was, contrary to what has previously been claimed, not based on a professional assessment of the institute, but on the political instructions of an external actor—whose name is redacted in the minutes

By Paul Schreyer, Multipolar Magazin, 18 March 2024 [source]

[Then RKI president] Lothar Wieler's voice sounded as usual sonorous and calm when he announced a decision in front of the cameras on March 17, 2020, which would become the basis for all lockdown measures and thus turn life in Germany upside down for several years:

Today we will change the risk assessment for the health of the population in Germany. We will rate them as high from today onwards. The reason is quite simple. You see the dynamic…The background for the changed risk assessment is the continuing increase in the number of cases…

As it soon became clear, the upgrading of the risk assessment was the legal basis for all Corona measures. All courts that rejected lawsuits from those affected against the measures subsequently cited this. Tenor: the risk assessment of the RKI—as the competent specialist authority designated by the Infection Protection Act—is not questioned as a court. If the RKI says that the risk is high, then that is the case and the corresponding politically decided measures are therefore justified [talk about ‘circular reasoning’].

Implausible Argumentation

Multipolar had already researched at the end of March 2020 that Wieler's brief justification for the upgrade (‘dynamic’, ‘increasing number of cases’) was implausible. Not only did the number of cases triple in March, but also the number of tests carried out—which the RKI also admitted in the small print of its situation report a few days after a corresponding request from our magazine on March 26, 2020, but hardly anyone noticed at the time.

Specifically: the actual increase in the spread of the virus, based on the number of tests, was only one percentage point shortly before the lockdown. Between March 9 and 15, 2020, six percent of those examined in Germany tested positive for the virus, and between March 16 and 22, seven percent (RKI status report, dated March 26, 2020, p. 6). This increase of one percentage point represented the so-called ‘exponential growth’ of the epidemic that everyone in politics and the media was talking about at the time. On March 22, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the lockdown on the grounds that the coronavirus was ‘continuing to spread at a worrying rate’.

It was probably clear to the experts at the RKI, headed by Lothar Wieler and his deputy Lars Schaade, that this interpretation was misleading. So what was actually behind the increase in risk assessment? What discussions took place in the RKI, what arguments were exchanged internally? In short: what was the decision based on?

Our FOIA Request

The RKI consistently blocked corresponding inquiries. After an initial lawsuit by Multipolar in November 2020 to enforce the right to information under press law, a decision was made by the Berlin Administrative Court in March 2021, according to which the RKI had to disclose at least the names of the higher-ranking members of the RKI crisis team. Multipolar then made a request under the Freedom of Information Act through the renowned Berlin law firm Partsch & Partner. The RKI took a long time to respond, so at the end of 2021 we sued for access to the RKI Crisis Team’s minutes. After years of tug-of-war between lawyers, the RKI decided in a surprising U-turn in 2023 to release the protocols, albeit with extensive redactions.

Multipolar will soon publish the bundle of more than 200 protocols totalling over a thousand pages from the period January 2020 to April 2021. (Update March 20: The documents have now been published.) We are currently suing the Berlin Administrative Court to have the redactions lifted. A hearing on this will take place there on May 6th.

Finally: The process has so far cost our magazine around 15,000 euros. We finance it from small donations from our readers—and are grateful for further support.

---

Bottom Lines

I suppose we’re at the point in time where we’re able to draw some conclusions about the clusterfuckery we’ve endured over the past four years:

• In general, this is an entirely all-partisan shitshow, with perhaps parts of the notoriously-labelled ‘far right-wing extremist’ factions constituting either ‘useful idiots’, ‘controlled opposition’, or a genuine break-away squad of renegades.

• As regards the latter, my hesitation derives from a few ‘insights’: Pres. Trump recently lauded the modRNA injections, Zero Covid Hawk Pamela Rendi-Wagner was anointed head of the ECDC, and these damn jabs are still available, to cite but a few.

• Trust in ‘multinationalism’ appears equally misplaced, as it was recently reported that, although a ‘deadly enemy’, Russia is ‘very prepared for Disease X’. Like other countries, the introduction of CBDCs is apparently planned in the near future.

• Closer to home, Europe, yesterday Norwegian state broadcaster shilled for some party as they now ‘want to join the EU’—Borg—for whatever reason. There is no good reason for any ‘regular’ person to do so, but the politicians who wish to join the EU don’t represent ‘the people’. As to those ‘renegade’ factions in EU member-states, the litmus test appears to be the issue of exiting the EU—and as long as there is no clear commitment on this issue, well, change my mind.

The Covid shitshow was a gigantic psy-op. Former RKI chieftain Wieler received the Federal Order of Merit (Bundesverdienstkreuz), ostensibly for severely misleading the public and lying to ‘the people’.

Thus we may conclude two main issues, and to drive them home, I shall quote, albeit in slightly modified fashion, French economist Frédéric Bastiat (with emphases added):

When lying becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorises it and a moral code that glorifies it. (1848)

Secondly, what the Covid shitshow also shows is—the imminent demise of Western-style socialism:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all [line break added].

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education [line break added].

We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all [line break added].

We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality [line break added].

And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain [line break added].

I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law—by force—and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes.

Nuff said.